If we were to rewrite our treaty rights...

linguist

Hello all,

My first post here so hope I stay within the boundaries.

I've been thinking for a while about the limits or conditions that we might append to our fundamental treaty rights (live, work, travel) in the light of how these have actually played out.

I sometimes get the impression that the ideal mobile European citizen envisaged in the Maastricht and subsequent treaties was a well-educated, urbane, middle-class type who would have a burning desire to be a 'good' European, learn the local language, integrate fully etc. Whilst there are many of these out there, it's pretty obvious that Ireland has also attracted many lower-skilled people whose willingness - without reasonable coercion - to fully integrate into the host country is open to debate.

If we could go back 20 years or so, these would be my proposals:

1) The right to work anywhere in the European Union would be subject to the right of individual member states to impose reasonable restrictions to protect their distinctive identities. Such restrictions might include competence in national language(s) to a tangible, measurable extent. The level required could vary according to the role to be performed. It could be set by the State as part of overall measures to provide some protection to the indigenous workforce.

2) The right to travel would be restricted in the case of persons convicted of certain categories of serious offences. The schedule of offences would be included in the treaties. Such persons would be required to apply for a national or Schengen visa as appropriate.

3) Conviction for one of the serious offences included in the aforementioned schedule, in a country other than one's own, would lead to deportation and expulsion from the state concerned for a period of time defined in the treaties. Such deportation would take effect from the end of the sentence imposed by the courts.

4) It would be the migrant's responsibility to integrate himself and his family in the receiving country. Specifically, any extra tuition his children require in the national language(s) would be paid for by the migrant. The children would have equal access to special education provision (SNAs, resource teaching...) on the basis of need.

It's not my intention to be provocative, reactionary or anything else. It's just that I feel that economic migration in most parts of the world carries with it clear obligations for the migrant. In the case of the EU, it seems to be all rights and no responsibilities. That might work for highly motivated, professional people but it does concern me that no effort is being made to push the others. I do feel strongly on the education issue because there have been severe cutbacks to special education across the board and why should we have to provide English tuition to kids arriving in primary when they have often lived here since birth speaking only Polish/Lithuanian etc at home?

Victor

Jobs for some. Miniature EU flags for others!

linguist

I noted before posting that the rules for this forum stated that it was about debate and not rants. Sadly, I can't engage with your answer because I actually can't work out what your point is. I'm surprised that, as a mod, you couldn't do better.

View

OP, while it is certainly true that Citizenship of the EU was introduced in the Maastricht treaty (the TEU), the freedom of movement rights you refer to go back all the way to the ECSC and there is (IMO) basically zero chance that they will be restricted (as it would directly contradict a stated objective of the EU). In fact, the rights - which are not absolute and do allow for restrictions in limited cases - have been increasingly extended over time.

The member states are actively (but very slowly as usual) working on measures to increase police cooperation to deal with the problems that arise as a result. A lot of this takes place within Schengen so it probably doesn't get the media coverage it should though.

I would imagine most governments of the EU would refuse point blank to consider measures that would allow other member states to discriminate against their citizens. I can't see us being happy at the idea that the UK government could force people in NI to be integrate and be "properly" British - mandatory "Glorious 12th" parades might be slightly incendiary at a guess!

The Corinthian

linguist wrote: »

1) The right to work anywhere in the European Union would be subject to the right of individual member states to impose reasonable restrictions to protect their distinctive identities. Such restrictions might include competence in national language(s) to a tangible, measurable extent. The level required could vary according to the role to be performed. It could be set by the State as part of overall measures to provide some protection to the indigenous workforce.

2) The right to travel would be restricted in the case of persons convicted of certain categories of serious offences. The schedule of offences would be included in the treaties. Such persons would be required to apply for a national or Schengen visa as appropriate.

3) Conviction for one of the serious offences included in the aforementioned schedule, in a country other than one's own, would lead to deportation and expulsion from the state concerned for a period of time defined in the treaties. Such deportation would take effect from the end of the sentence imposed by the courts.

4) It would be the migrant's responsibility to integrate himself and his family in the receiving country. Specifically, any extra tuition his children require in the national language(s) would be paid for by the migrant. The children would have equal access to special education provision (SNAs, resource teaching...) on the basis of need.

Essentially what you're describing is going back to pre-Maastricht immigration rules.

Victor

linguist wrote: »

I noted before posting that the rules for this forum stated that it was about debate and not rants. Sadly, I can't engage with your answer because I actually can't work out what your point is. I'm surprised that, as a mod, you couldn't do better.

What I said is paraphrasing a Simpsons quote.

However, it succinctly describes what you suggest. That the middle classes would have freedom of movement - one of the EU fundamentals - but others would be reduced to simply having a flag and no freedom of movement.

The reality, is that the EU freedom of movement principle was about workers - ordinary people who can move about as they wish to work in agriculture, industry and services - so that economic assets can be used to their best extent, for benfit of worker and business, perhaps best exemplified by the German Gastarbeiterp in the post-war era.#

Just like a native worker, not every guest worker has the language, educational or social skills to adapt fully to their new surrounding. However, it is commonly noted that children of immigrants do better than native children in education and work.

Criminals can already be deported.

linguist

Sorry for going quiet on this, I've been pretty busy over the last few days. And thanks Victor for clarifying. I'm afraid I wasn't familiar with that particular Simpsons quote!

Just to answer View's point, my original post is a hypothetical. If we, and in particular Ireland, were to find ourselves pre-Maastricht drafting the rights we have (and yes I acknowledge that some of them go back a long way further than that), what might we do differently if we had a crystal ball in front of us?

I would question whether this is solely a 'class' issue - although I admit that I framed my original post in that way and I don't want to go shifting goalposts. I think the point is that every Irish teenager knows that if they mess up and get a conviction for anything significant, it will deal a blow to their prospects of getting into the US/Australia/Canada etc. Similarly, if you step out of line in some of those countries, you could find yourself on a plane home pretty quickly or at least jeapardise your visa renewal or extension.

Similarly, if you want to reside long term in many of the countries Irish people tend to go to, and particularly take out citizenship, you increasingly need to pass a test or otherwise prove your level of integration and fidelity to your adopted homeland. I do realise that is the case here also for citizenship.

When the immigration issue is raised on certain phone-in programmes in this country - not always in measured terms - the arguments that Irish people seem to relate to are:
1) our laws should be respected and those who don't do so should be deported
2) people should integrate and learn English
3) Irish people traditionally pulled themselves up by their boot strings overseas and didn't look for handouts.

The third point reflects the new world dimension to Irish emigration but it does actually resonate in people's views regarding what they expect of people who come here.

View's point about Northern Ireland is a red herring since both Irish and UK citizenship are afforded equal status there and there is of course no expectation that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland would embrace loyalist parades or symbols.

There is always a balancing act to be struck as to what living in a liberal, European democracy means for our expectations of newcomers. Victor states that criminals can already be deported. How do we square this with media reports that certain people have flown back in here shortly afterwards and gone on to commit further crimes? Obviously that's an enforcement issue. However, my central argument is that by awarding virtually blanket rights whilst failing to look at expectations/conditions that have enabled other perfectly democratic countries to manage these issues, the EU has created the conditions - as seen with UKIP in the UK - for large numbers of people to believe that the traditional ethos and values of their countries are not being afforded sufficient protection.

View

linguist wrote: »

Sorry for going quiet on this, I've been pretty busy over the last few days. And thanks Victor for clarifying. I'm afraid I wasn't familiar with that particular Simpsons quote!

Just to answer View's point, my original post is a hypothetical. If we, and in particular Ireland, were to find ourselves pre-Maastricht drafting the rights we have (and yes I acknowledge that some of them go back a long way further than that), what might we do differently if we had a crystal ball in front of us?

I would question whether this is solely a 'class' issue - although I admit that I framed my original post in that way and I don't want to go shifting goalposts. I think the point is that every Irish teenager knows that if they mess up and get a conviction for anything significant, it will deal a blow to their prospects of getting into the US/Australia/Canada etc. Similarly, if you step out of line in some of those countries, you could find yourself on a plane home pretty quickly or at least jeapardise your visa renewal or extension.

Similarly, if you want to reside long term in many of the countries Irish people tend to go to, and particularly take out citizenship, you increasingly need to pass a test or otherwise prove your level of integration and fidelity to your adopted homeland. I do realise that is the case here also for citizenship.

When the immigration issue is raised on certain phone-in programmes in this country - not always in measured terms - the arguments that Irish people seem to relate to are:
1) our laws should be respected and those who don't do so should be deported
2) people should integrate and learn English
3) Irish people traditionally pulled themselves up by their boot strings overseas and didn't look for handouts.

The third point reflects the new world dimension to Irish emigration but it does actually resonate in people's views regarding what they expect of people who come here.

View's point about Northern Ireland is a red herring since both Irish and UK citizenship are afforded equal status there and there is of course no expectation that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland would embrace loyalist parades or symbols.

There is always a balancing act to be struck as to what living in a liberal, European democracy means for our expectations of newcomers. Victor states that criminals can already be deported. How do we square this with media reports that certain people have flown back in here shortly afterwards and gone on to commit further crimes? Obviously that's an enforcement issue. However, my central argument is that by awarding virtually blanket rights whilst failing to look at expectations/conditions that have enabled other perfectly democratic countries to manage these issues, the EU has created the conditions - as seen with UKIP in the UK - for large numbers of people to believe that the traditional ethos and values of their countries are not being afforded sufficient protection.

We probably wouldn't have done much different bar hopefully avoid some of the more obvious problems that have arisen since then.

Remember this is what we agreed - from the current version of the EU treaties:

"
The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime." (TEU Article 3.2)

Remember, the TEU formally introduced "Union citizenship". The issue of what non-EU countries do is not relevant to the internal-EU movement of Union Citizens. The actions of the EU member states has been broadly to work towards eliminating barriers for Union citizens not to create them.

PS the NI example was for illustration, the point being thay member states are very cautious about agreeing to exceptions since they can back-fire (and the GFA can after all be scrapped by the UK (or Ireland) at any stage)

mickdw

I don't have the knowledge of the various treaties to debate the subject however the points made in the op make absolute sense to me and I would certainly much prefer if that was the way things currently stood.

Cody Pomeray

linguist wrote: »

Victor states that criminals can already be deported. How do we square this with media reports that certain people have flown back in here shortly afterwards and gone on to commit further crimes?

I'm not aware of those media reports. Obviously those people are behaving similarly to any criminal who is, effectively, on the run.

The fact is it has gotten an awful lot easier to deport EU citizens in the last 2 years.

And in contrast with what you appear to believe in terms of the kinds of people who move between states, I have to disagree. EU freedom of movement favours the rich, not the poor. Roma gypsies for example, have been some of the least protected individuals in this respect.

linguist

Let's be clear: I am very much in favour of the general thrust of what the EU is about and the treaty rights we're discussing. Indeed, I've benefited from them myself having lived in two other EU states for a while.

However, what non-EU states do enters very much into the hypothetical question I'm asking here because the conditions they set down legislate for the fact that rights should never exist without responsibilities and also the fact that one of the main incentives not to abuse our freedoms is the threat of very tangible sanctions if we do.

Again, the issue of Roma gypsies is a red herring. As it happens, many of them are Romanian and thus have had restrictions placed on their right to 'work' alongside the rest of their countrymen. You could argue that it is non-Roma Romanian citizens (along with Bulgarians) who have been most discriminated against because the restrictions placed on their right to work across the EU stem from a 'scare' regarding mass Roma immigration. Imagine if the movement of Irish people was restricted because of exaggerated fears about certain elements of the travelling community.

Furthermore, I suspect Cody may be referring to the deportation of Roma from France in the recent past. Let's be clear: none of us has the right to go to another EU state and become destitute and ultimately a burden on that state. We have the right to travel, live and work provided we can support ourselves in a legitimate manner. After a certain period, we become entitled to social welfare but not immediately. Sorry to risk the ire of some, but what France did was stick to the letter of the treaties. I have sometimes wondered whether we should have sought the assistance of the Czech government regarding that poor homeless man who died in Ennis. Surely his own country had some responsibility towards him.

Cody, all I can say about the media reports is that one of them pertains to a case that has been on the front pages here over the past week or so and it would be reckless of me to endanger a possible trial by saying more here. I genuinely am not aware of how it has become easier to deport EU citizens recently. Please elaborate as that would very possibly allay some of these concerns.

There is nothing wrong with trying to break down borders provided we are clear with people regarding what the migrant is expected to do for themselves and the mechanisms for keeping out dangerous individuals are robust. When we hear of eastern European 'mafias' operating here - even if the tone is sometimes hyperbolic and dangerous - we have to be concerned.

Cody Pomeray

linguist wrote: »

Furthermore, I suspect Cody may be referring to the deportation of Roma from France in the recent past. Let's be clear: none of us has the right to go to another EU state and become destitute and ultimately a burden on that state.

Correct on both counts.

Which makes it all the more difficult to understand what your references to establishing immigrants' duties when arriving here.

There are two clear responses to this thread.

1. Non-citizen EU residents have no immutable right to reside in Ireland. Deportation for EU citizens has become far more straightforward in the past couple of years.

2. Immigrants already have duties to uphold; conditions attach to their residence, and they cannot expect to reside in this jurisdiction without close family connections or whilst relying on welfare.

I'm not clear as to what any remaining criticism is.

Victor

linguist wrote: »

Cody, all I can say about the media reports is that one of them pertains to a case that has been on the front pages here over the past week or so and it would be reckless of me to endanger a possible trial by saying more here.

Perhaps a link?

linguist

No. What's currently a major Garda investigation could lead to charges and a trial pretty soon and I've no intention of posting material that could prejudice that.